Anyone walking the southern beaches of the Isle of Palms is shocked by the condition of the beaches. Yet, rather than question existing beach management practices, which largely consist of scraping compacted sand and pushing it up against an increasingly eroded escarpment, our local politicians and environmental agencies profess either helplessness or more of the same. Newspapers like the Post and Courier write “editorials” largely crafted by radical environmental groups like the Coastal Conservation League masquerading as tax-exempt 501(c)3 charities. Rather than add to this false, ideological debate, listed below are some definitions and studies that may help people come to their own opinions:
Mean high tide line: This line marks the average high tide level over 19 years calculated using long-term tidal observations managed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Private property boundaries on oceanfront land typically end at the mean high tide line. The mean high tide line is often misrepresented as where the high tide is on any given day. When a homeowner buys land, they pay for the land up to the mean high tide and pay taxes on that land. This is how the land was platted and sold.
Public trust doctrine: In South Carolina, this doctrine says that the state owns all land below the mean high water mark. This means that beachfront owners do not own the land seaward of the mean high tide line described above. Once again, this is often misrepresented as the land below the high tide on any given day or any given month.
Quid pro quo with setback lines: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation," states the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is reiterated in the state constitution and is specifically referenced in Section 48-39-30(C) of the Beach Management Act. To get around this, the state created the baseline, which in most instances is set at the toe of the primary dune. The state crafted their laws so homeowners gave up jurisdiction on their properties landward from the mean high tide line to the baseline at no cost to the state. In return, the state agreed to maintain a dune system that protected the coastline and is the heart of the beach ecosystem. The state also agreed to renourish the beaches seaward of the dune system to maintain a healthy beach system. It was a satisfactory arrangement for all sides. All homeowners wanted a healthy beach and ecosystem. The government took on the responsibility of maintaining the dune system (which also acted as a physical boundary between the public beach and homeowners’ yards), and the government agreed to refurbish the beaches. The entire beach management law talks about renourishment and dune maintenance. In 2014, the state agreed to let 1% of accommodation tax money be redirected to these efforts. The 2014 Accommodations Tax Beach Fund specifies the funds were to be used exclusively for beach renourishment (new sand), dune maintenance and vegetation, and maintenance of public beach paths. This law further reiterated the quid pro quo principle outlined above. In almost 10 years, none of the funds have been used for these stated purposes.
Beach renourishment: Every beach management expert in the world has said that if you want a beach, you have to renourish with new sand. In fact, the beach expert from North Carolina who spoke at the beach workgroup meeting said it is a mathematical formula. Calculate how much beach you want, enter it into a spreadsheet, and it will tell you how much sand you need. When new sand is placed, it may initially wash out 15 to 20 feet, but it begins to fill in the holes and push the water back, allowing the dune system to eventually establish and stabilize. Despite claims to the contrary, other than a small sprinkling of new sand after Idalia, there has been no new sand on the southern beaches in this century. Public funds were appropriated in 2018 to add 600,000 cubic yards to the southern beaches during the Wild Dunes renourishment, but apparently, the funds got used up in the Wild Dunes and zero sand was added. Any surprise that the beaches are in the condition they are? The argument is that new sand is expensive. The only other option is to keep backing up and annexing private property, which is unconstitutional, without purchasing such property, in addition to violating state law, which specifically backed away from a policy of “retreat” in 2018.
Sea walls: This is an issue that excites a lot of emotion. So, I will avoid the ideology and stick mostly with data. South Carolina does not ban seawalls, as is the popular narrative. The statute only requires seawalls to be permitted seaward of the setback line. This law has somehow been modified in the press and in council demagoguery. Florida studied seawalls extensively and concluded that with sea level rise, ever-increasingly aggressive storms, and the expense of sand, oceanfront is best protected by seawalls that are then covered in sand and vegetated. Florida issues matching grants for seawalls and is developing marine-friendly 3D-printed seawalls. As one Florida expert testified, “I can place $10 million of sand that can be washed away in one bad, stormy night.” As opposed to an ideological argument that is largely theoretical, it may behoove people to read some of the studies on this subject that have surveyed multiple coastal regions. Some examples: “Long-term shoreline changes and role of seawalls in coastal defense” (Japan study 2017) and the Army Corps’ own study about the protection seawalls afforded after Hurricane Sandy Army Corps Study (nan.usace.army.mil/About/Hurricane-Sandy/Coastal-Projects-Performance-Evaluation-Study).
It is a far better strategy to let homeowners protect their property with sand-covered vegetated structures and let government focus on a dune system and beach renourishment. Worldwide communities realize that it is not economically or practically feasible to protect the coastline with sand.
In summary, if we could only stop attacking each other and put our heads together, we could always come up with the common good. When we have a mayor and council members attacking citizens they represent in public, we sow division. Division leads to inaction and a win-lose outcome. This issue of erosion has been solved worldwide through good leadership. It is obvious we are going backward here. Can we come together and reset?
Reddy or Not represents the opinion of Lucky Dog Publishing owner Rom Reddy but not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper. In keeping with our philosophy of publishing all opinions, we welcome responses, which must be limited to 400 words and will be published on a space-available basis.
